Point of Order

Tim Yeo: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I do so reeling from my defeat in the Division. This is the first occasion on which I have moved a motion for which not a single colleague, or even I, actually voted. I hope that I shall have a bit more success later.
	It is a great privilege to introduce a private Member's Bill. At the 24th attempt, I draw second place in the ballot. It was the first time I had been in the top six since I first came to the House, and I deliberately chose to present a Bill that is non-partisan in nature. I realise that non-partisan does not mean non-controversial, but there is support for the Bill in all parts of the House. I am particularly grateful to my colleagues who sponsored it, and to all who signed early-day motion 484. I just hope that all who signed that motion, if not already present, are on their way here from their constituencies to vote later this morning.

Andrew MacKay: With so many offers of support, does my hon. Friend agree that it was slightly unfortunate that the Division took so long? Does not he think that it would be even more unfortunate if Government Whips tried to arrange for the Bill to be talked out, because a great majority ofmy constituents are in favour of it? As he said, it is controversial, so at the very least it should go to Committee so that it can be properly debated.

Tim Yeo: The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that I was going to make myself. He is respected forhis independence of view. Indeed, a lot of Labour Members are suddenly becoming more independent as they sense a transition of power. I was a little surprised to hear him launch such a savage attack on the congestion charge, which I think most of us have got used to.

Tim Yeo: The Minister has made a most helpful point. Those tactics did spectacularly fail, and I dare say that if he follows the same path as the Conservatives did then, there will be a similar spectacular failure in the May elections. Most recently, Lord Tanlaw introduced a Bill in the House of Lords, which again had all-party support.
	When I researched the history of the issue under discussion, I was reminded of something that I am unsure whether I ever knew, but if I did I had forgotten it: Greenwich mean time—and, indeed, the very concept of standardised time for a whole country—is a relatively recent concept. At the beginning of the19th century, different parts of Britain had different time zones, and that caused problems at the advent of the railways. Passengers were not always aware ofthe time zones according to which the times of the trains were calculated. In 1840, one timetable hadto point out that London time was four minutesahead of Reading time, five and a half minutes ahead of Steventon time, seven and a half minutes ahead of Chippenham time, and so on down the line.
	When pressed to introduce a standardised timetable for the convenience of passengers, one railway company protested that to do so
	"would tend to make punctuality a sort of obligation".
	Nothing much has changed. My long-suffering constituents in South Suffolk, hundreds of whom commute to London to work every day—some of them in the dark—have to put up with a franchisee that is called, rather bizarrely, One Railway. It is the linear successor of the company that I have just quoted, and it has exactly the same approach to punctuality—as an obligation that it does not feel inclined to honour particularly frequently.

Tim Yeo: Some Members I exempt from any such charge.
	Some colleagues will recall the debate that surrounded the introduction of a law making the wearing of seat belts compulsory. It is hard to believe now that less than 25 years ago that was regardedas a highly controversial proposal. The experimental procedure was used then, and it was successful, because people quickly became accustomed to wearing seat belts—and, more importantly, they soon recognised the benefits of wearing seat belts in terms of lives saved and injuries avoided.
	I am confident that my Bill will achieve similar benefits, but I accept that not everyone is yet convinced. For that reason, clause 4 provides for the appointment of a review panel, which after the first two years of the experiment will examine the effects of the Bill and report publicly on them. To ensure the independence of that panel—not that I am suggesting that the Government would ever try to exert influence in respect of appointments of that kind—the Bill explicitly provides for one of the panel's members tobe nominated by the Royal Society, one by the Government's chief scientific adviser, one by the chief medical officer and one by the Office for National Statistics—and, of course, some by the Secretary of State as well.
	The Bill requires the panel to report specifically on changes in the number of road traffic accidents, the level of energy consumption and the level of ill health, and on any other areas that the panel believes have been directly affected by the alteration in the clocks. The importance of that panel is that it will give the public unbiased information on which to form a view about the advantages and disadvantages of the change. It will then be for Parliament to decide whether to continue the three-year experiment, and whether to make the change permanent.
	When the last experiment took place almost 40 years ago, it was abandoned after over-hasty examination of inadequate, and possibly misleading, evidence on the impact of the change. The decision to abandon that experiment was a seriously wrong judgment. In any event, we must now judge the issue on the basis of what it does in today's conditions.
	One other aspect of the Bill requires to be explained. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 provide for the changes proposed in the Bill to be treated as a devolved issue, so that the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly can decide for themselves whether those parts of the United Kingdom should conduct the same experiment as England.

Mark Lazarowicz: In the hon. Gentleman's historical diversion of a few minutes ago he referred to the difficulties that arose when we had different timezones throughout the UK, but he now seems to be proposing the possibility of separate Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish time zones. Does that provide another example of a new-found collusion between English nationalism and Scottish nationalism?

Tim Yeo: My Bill is designed simply to allow different parts of the United Kingdom to make up their own minds. Personally, I hope that we will have a single time zone, but I am not trying to force my views on other people. The benefits of the change that I am proposing would be considerable, and would apply to all parts of the UK, but because I recognise that this issue is more controversial issue in some parts of the UK than others, I also believe that the relevant bodies should have a chance to decide for themselves.

Eric Martlew: Because of the opt-out that the hon. Gentleman has included in the Bill, I cannot support it, although I would like to. In my area, an ITV station called Border Television broadcasts both sides of the border, so under the hon. Gentleman's Bill, the news that is broadcast on oneside of the border at 5 o'clock would be broadcast at6 o'clock on the other side. There is an arrogance about the hon. Gentleman—he does not realise the confusion that his Bill would cause for those of us who live in the English-Scottish border region.

Alan Beith: There is a more immediate and practical point arising form the hon. Gentleman's multiple time zone concept. Given that two thirds of Berwick's hinterland is in Scotland, a vet, plumber or any other tradesman making a series of appointments at farms and other places round about would have to check the postcode of every such place to work out whether it will be 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock when he gets there.

Tim Yeo: Apart from that last remark, I am very grateful for that intervention, with which I entirely agree.
	Let me explain the Bill's principal benefits. The first, and in my view the most important, is the saving of lives. While it is hard to be absolutely preciseabout the numbers, I note what the Minister with responsibility for road safety, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), said in Committee during consideration of the Road Safety Bill on20 April last year. He said:
	"In my written answer to my hon. Friend's parliamentary question, I said publicly, and I shall reiterate now, that changing to single/double summer time would have road safety benefits. It is not in doubt—the research has been done. It was done following the experiment to which the hon. Member for Wimbledon referred, and we have the report from TRL"—
	the Transport Research Laboratory—
	"in 1998 that examined the impact of single/double summer time more closely. We know it will have road safety benefits—that is not in doubt, so there is no point commissioning any more research on it. I buy the argument and I have heard nobody either disagree with it or challenge the data.
	How many lives and injuries would the change save? Something of the order of 100 lives, and something of the order of 400 people killed or seriously injured...I am prepared to accept that approximately 100 lives would be saved and approximately 400 people killed or seriously injured wouldbe spared that fate."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee A,20 April 2006; c. 288.]
	That is the on-the-record statement by the Minister with responsibility for road safety, and I regard it as clear, unequivocal and important. If the passing of this Bill means that 400 families would be spared the grief and tragedy of a bereavement or a serious injury toone of their loved ones, how can the Minister atthe Dispatch Box today possibly not throw the Government's full weight behind it? However, whatever the Minister says, these figures are widely accepted as the best current estimate, and the House should be willing to give this change a try, at least. The number of lives that would be saved is similar to the number that are saved, it is claimed, through the operation of the speed cameras to which the Government are so addicted.
	Given that the cost of the changes proposed in the Bill is virtually nil to the public sector, it would be extraordinary if the Government did not back this very simple step. Let us suppose—heaven forbid that this should happen—that this weekend, an accident occurs somewhere in the transport system in which 100 lives are lost. A public inquiry would immediately be set up. Let us also suppose that that inquiry found that it is absolutely certain that a similar accident will occur every year, with similar loss of life, unless Parliament takes the simple step of changing the clocks. There would be a public outcry if we did not take that step.
	That is exactly the position that we are in today. It is not a surprise, therefore, that many organisations have announced their support for the Bill. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents,
	"Mr. Yeo's Bill is the opportunity to implement changes which will protect our most vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children and the elderly who are more at risk during dark evenings. Every autumn when the clocks go back we see an increase in road deaths and injuries and these proposals could stop that from happening."
	In a press release last week, the AA said that the Bill
	"appears to make sound road safety and environmental sense".
	I turn now to the environmental case. A recent study entitled "Policy inertia on UK daylight saving: the cost in accidents, energy and emissions", by Dr. Elizabeth Garnsey and others, of Cambridge university, showed that both peaks in demand for electricity and actual energy consumption would be lower under single/double summer time, particularly throughout the winter. At my recent meeting with the National Grid, its management confirmed that the peak in electricity demand would be lower, enabling the country to operate with a lower level of capacity at all times throughout the year. The Cambridge study estimated that carbon emissions would be cut by 170,000 tonnes annually, at no cost to gross domestic product. That is equivalent to approximately 0.1 per cent. of total annual carbon emissions from the UK.
	The growing and urgent threat of climate change will make the reduction of carbon emissions a greater and greater priority in the next few years, and this is one of the easiest and cheapest ways in which they could be reduced—a fact that was recognised by Lord Rooker in an answer in the other place recently. When he was a Member of this House, he was respected by both sides for speaking his mind and pioneering several policy changes.

Tim Yeo: I have had representations from several faith groups and I recognise that the Bill would raise issues for certain believers. However, it is the job ofthe House to make a judgment about the balance of advantage for the whole population. Indeed, we have seen recently the difficulty that the Government have got into in appearing to place perhaps undue emphasis on the concerns of individual faith groups.

Tim Yeo: That is exactly what they do. I have represented South Suffolk for 24 years and many more people now catch the 5.30 train from Manningtree to get to the City in time to do business with the continent. That is the crowded train now, whereas24 years ago it was the 6.45 train.
	The economic benefits are particularly great in the tourist industry, an important employer that may become even more significant to our economy during the 21st century. The chairman of the Tourism Alliance, Tony Milnes, has said:
	"The Tourism Alliance, which comprises almost fifty tourism organisations that together represent some 200,000 businesses of all sizes throughout the UK, is fully supportive of the Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill. Aligning our clocks with the rest of Europe would boost the country's earnings from both domestic and inbound tourism while at the same time reducing the UK's £18 billion tourism deficit and aviation related climate change."
	I could not have put it better myself.
	All in all, the benefits—in terms of saving lives, avoiding injuries, improving road safety, cutting energy consumption and reducing carbon emissions, improving the quality of life and strengthening the economy—add up to an overwhelming case in favour of the Bill. Furthermore, there have been several changes in the 40 years since the previous experiment that are material to the Bill. The most important of those is the much greater concern today about the importance of saving energy and cutting carbon emissions, an issue that was neither understood nor of concern in the late 1960s. Secondly, as has been mentioned, many more British people now travel regularly to the continent of Europe, and they would find those journeys more convenient after the change—a particularly important advantage for the business community.
	Working practices are also more flexible than they were 40 years ago and those few industries that resisted the change then have for the most part become more relaxed in their attitudes. One of those industries, widely but wrongly thought to be hostile to the change, is agriculture, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) mentioned a few moments ago. This week, I received a letter from the National Farmers Union, which stated:
	"For reasons lost in history, in the past the farming community were, or at least were perceived to be, opposed to such a proposal. Subject to careful scrutiny of the impact of the change on agriculture and rural communities during the experimental period, I can inform you that so far as we can judge without a thorough consultation farmers now are agnostic, if not favourably disposed, towards the proposal."
	We have touched on the Scottish dimension several times, so I stress that the benefits I have described apply as strongly in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom, although I am aware that the proposal has less support in Scotland. A YouGov poll, highlighted in  The Daily Telegraph on Boxing day, revealed that 54 per cent. of British people as a whole support the change, with only 36 per cent. against, but in Scotland the figures are 40 per cent. in favour and 48 per cent. against.
	The House has to decide whether it is right to allow the Scottish tail to wag the British dog. Are the views of Scotland to prevail over those of the rest of the UK? London has a bigger population and a larger economy than Scotland and there can be little doubt that the majority of Londoners would warmly welcome the change. Indeed, two weeks ago the Mayor of London wrote to me, saying that
	"an extra hour of daylight in the winter evenings would boost the London leisure industries and tourism and result in a big fall in deaths and serious injuries in traffic accidents.
	Such a measure would also mean lower carbon dioxide emissions through a reduction in energy consumption and lighting which is a significant contributor to carbon dioxide emissions, particularly in the commercial sector in London...I would welcome any measure that brought the UK into line with Central European Time where that would enable a reduction in the amount of aircraft noise in the early morning, which is a particular issue for many thousands of Londoners.
	I commissioned a survey in October 2005 to ascertain the views of Londoners and Scottish people on this issue. The results indicated that once the benefits have been explained to people the support for a revision increases, both in London and Scotland."
	I am happy to confirm that on that issue—indeed, on a number of others, too—I completely agree with the Mayor.
	In conclusion, the balance of advantage lies overwhelmingly with making the change. I hope that even if the Minister is not able to support the Bill, he will explain why, when a Transport Minister says it will save lives and a Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister says it will improve the environment, the Department of Trade and Industry cannot give it support. The Government could not get much more unjoined-up than that. However, there is time for the Minister to become the hero of the hour and say that at least the Bill should go into Committee where it can be examined in more detail.
	The Bill introduces an experiment, and provides for the experiment to be monitored. It allows other parts of the United Kingdom to decide whether they want to join the experiment. The change will inevitably be made eventually. The question today is whether we should enjoy its benefits sooner rather than later.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

David Kidney: I recognise that argument. If the Bill were successful, and if a Scottish Parliament were considering whether to keep to the time zone in England, it would take that factor into account.
	A third, but still incomplete artificial change, was the adoption of daylight saving time. The hon. Member for South Suffolk mentioned the first great campaigner in this country, William Willett, who produced, published and distributed at his own expense the pamphlet, "Waste of Daylight". He wanted to provide more time for exercise in the open air at the end of each day.
	It is now fashionable on the Labour Benches to be proud of and respectful towards Winston Churchill. He certainly had a good turn of phrase. At the beginning of the 20th century, in debates on the early Bills, he said that William Willett did not propose a change from natural time to artificial time, but rather that we substitute a convenient standard of artificial time for an inconvenient one. That puts our proposals in context.
	We are proposing not to add more daylight, but to provide more usable hours of daylight, which was the original motivation for such proposals. The first time that nations adopted daylight saving time was during a great challenge to the whole world: world war one. Many countries in Europe and in other continents—eventually 31 countries in four continents—adopted daylight saving time due to economic pressures. Their war efforts required more usable daylight hours. Although the UK never abandoned daylight summer time, we adopted double summer time during the second world war for increasingly longer times between 1941 and 1944, which gave us, in effect, what the Bill would provide. At that time, the National Farmers Union registered the strongest possible protest to the change.
	In modern times, in America in the 1950s and 1960s, for example, we have seen that without a co-ordinated move to daylight saving time, there is clock chaos, as  Time said. We have experimented with changing our time to try to make better use of daylight hours. There was a three-year experiment from 1968 when we adopted what we called British standard time, which was Greenwich mean time plus one hour all year round. Then, at the height of the oil crisis in 1973, the United States adopted daylight saving time all year round under the Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act 1973—a two-year experiment. Of course, the European Union has weighed in to make the time at which we put the clocks forward and back each year uniform across the EU. Most recently, the US adopted the Energy Policy Act 2005, which from this year onwards changes the times at which the clocks are put forward. It will now be on the second Sunday in March, and the clocks will be put back on the first Sunday in November. Those are some examples of countries legislating to change their hours.
	My reasons for supporting the Bill reflect those put forward by the hon. Member for South Suffolk: energy saving and climate change; road safety; trade and industry; and health and generally feeling good. Energy is the most important, as reflected in the title of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. The resulting gain should be the greatest with respect to energy.
	When our clocks were first put forward for daylight saving time in 1916, Parliament appointed a summer time Committee to evaluate the effect of doing so. A year later, it reported a 20 per cent. reduction in power for electric lighting equal to 1 per cent. of total coal use for the whole year. The next time that daylight saving time was adopted widely around the world was during world war two, but I have been unable to find any formal evaluations of the energy savings that occurred then.
	I move forward to the 1968 experiment in this country and the subsequent Home Office and Scotland Office review of British standard time in 1970. That contained a report from the power industry saying that there was a shift in electricity demand from evening to morning which, if continued, would allow a saving in the capacity required for the evenings—the peak demand time—equivalent to one whole power station and a capital cost of about £100 million. That paper was by the Central Electricity Generating Board—the precursor of today's National Grid—and the hon. Member for South Suffolk confirmed that, in his discussions with today's National Grid Company, those arguments still stand. It is important for us to take that into consideration.
	Let us think why the United States adopted daylight saving time all year round in 1973. It was becauseof the oil and energy crisis. The US Department of Transportation analysed the effects of the first year of adopting that time all year round and concluded thatit probably resulted in a decrease in electricity consumption in the order of 0.75 per cent. for January and February and 1 per cent. for March and April.
	In 2001, the state of California appointed an energy commission to look into the problem. We should remember that there was such a crisis there at the time that they could not even keep the lights on, which shows how crucial energy is to a modern society. The commission conducted a study that is reported in a Library research paper for the Bill. It states on page 20:
	"Both Winter Daylight Saving Time...and Summer-season Double Daylight Saving Time would probably save marginal amounts of electricity—around 3,400 MegaWatt hours...a day in winter, (one half of one per cent. of winter electricity use) and around 1,500 MWh a day during the summer season (one fifth of one per cent. of summer-season use)."
	Crucially, it describes the important shift from the peak evening demand to low and cheaper morning demand that is equivalent to a 3.4 per cent. change in total energy demand. David Prerau, the author of the book I mentioned, describes that as "peak shaving", which is becoming increasingly significant around the world.
	As we continued to reflect in this country on whether to move on again with summer time, a Green Paper was issued in 1989, "Summer Time: A Consultation Document" and the CEGB said that a permanent British standard time by shifting peak demand from evening to morning might obviate the need for one whole power station—consistent with my earlier point. Furthermore, the US Energy Policy Act 2005, driven again by high oil prices, included a requirement forthe Department of Energy to assess the actual contribution to energy conservation that the measure makes and report it to Congress. That is an echo ofthe proposal in the Bill to set up a review of the experiment, so that the facts will be available by the time we have to decide whether to make the change permanent.
	In my discussion with David Prerau, he said that most countries around the world—about 70—now operate daylight saving time and that the principal argument used to justify the change is energy. He says that the UK has been unusual in the past in making its principal argument road safety rather than energy.
	Related to energy, of course, is climate change. In all our previous debates about changing the clocks in this country, climate change was probably not a large factor. Today, most politicians would describe climate change as the greatest threat facing ourselves and the world in our deliberations, so climate change becomes a much more pressing consideration for the debate.
	There is not a great deal of research available to date to support my assertion that climate change will be more effectively tackled if we adopt the Bill. Some research was conducted on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by the British Research Establishment, but it is not particularly encouraging for this argument. It was only limited research centred on Manchester and based on information from its weather centre. It concluded that, if we adopted the equivalent of single/double summer time, although there would be some reductions in energy in some sectors, there would be increases in others and an overall slight net increase. That is disappointing. However, the hon. Member for South Suffolk mentioned more recent research by Cambridge university, which reported in this week's  Nature magazine. It is worth referring to it, because it is the most recent and most direct research on the subject.
	On page 344,  Nature states:
	"But the DST scheme can be taken further, argues Elizabeth Garnsey, an innovation researcher at the University of Cambridge UK, who has evaluated the probable effects of the proposed changes to the British system."
	She is reported as saying:
	"Countries are starting to realize that their day-light-saving policies haven't really been saving daylight. Moving the clocks forward yet another hour would produce a slew of benefits... The reduced need for lighting in the afternoons could save around £485 million... a year, as well as 170,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide."
	 Nature spoke up strongly against daylight saving time 95 years ago, but now its editorial says:
	"To fight climate change, we do not need to alarm ourselves with clocks of doom. Instead we just need to use our time to good purpose. And the reduction in energy use to be expected from single-double daylight saving in Britain—or from the extended single-daylight saving that is to be implemented in the United States this year—will be a marginal, but nonetheless welcome step in the right direction."
	I do not wish to over-claim the benefits for climate change, but I assert that there are some benefits to be gained and that we should seek to secure them. A three-year trial would settle the matter one way or the other.

David Kidney: I would answer my hon. Friend like this: the need to tackle climate change is urgent and if we are to deal with it we all need to make many changes in our daily lives, our businesses and our transportation. The Bill represents one such change—and it is a fairly easy and quick one. I also believe that it would be an effective one. That is my argument.
	I now want to move on from the issue of energy and climate change—I think that is the strongest argument for the Bill—to that of road safety, which also provides an important argument. Two years after the experiment in 1968, the Transport Research Laboratory published its initial findings. It reported in time for the debatein Parliament that there had been a net reduction of 2,700 in the number of people killed and seriously injured in the two winters since the experiment began. After the debate, a re-analysis of the figures gave an annual result of 230 fewer deaths, 1,120 fewer killed and seriously injured together and 2,340 fewer other injuries. They are significant figures and they are not assumptions; they are actuality. That is what happened at that time.
	The TRL has kept its research up to date and, most recently in 1998 re-analysed the figures and analysed single/double summer time against British standard time. Its research that year estimated adopting single double summer time would result in between 104 and 138 lives being saved on the roads every year. It would result in 450 fewer killed and seriously injured each year.

David Kidney: Yes, the studies by TRL and ROSPA show that the group that would most benefitwould be those aged between five and 15. I gave the statistics about pedestrians to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) because it is likely that quite a few of those pedestrians would have been children. There would be a significant saving.

David Kidney: I think that I have been clear all the way through not to over-claim. The number of casualties on the roads goes up on dark mornings; it is just that the number of casualties goes down far more if there is light at the end of the day. Overall, there is a saving. I do not say that there would not be dangers in the mornings. In fact, ROSPA makes a special point in its briefing paper that much more work would need to be done about safe travel to and from school in the mornings if the Bill were adopted. However, I note in passing that the Education and Inspections Act 2006 gives local authorities a wider power to provide for school buses. That is partly a solution. Equally, inareas such as Staffordshire, we have a good numberof walking buses that organise the safe walking of children to school with supervision. I will support such measures in future.
	Given that a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry is on the Front Bench, I now want to point out that there are benefits from the proposal for trade and industry. I take it that my hon. Friend considers the tourism industry to be a serious business and employer. According to the Tourism Alliance, tourism was worth £73 billion a year to the UK economy in 2002, earning £14 billion in foreign exchange every year, contributing 5 per cent. of our GDP and employing an estimated 2.1 million people. In the west midlands alone, 102 million tourism trips are taken each year, earning about £4.4 billion for the region and resulting in the employment of 130,000 people. In 1993, the Policy Studies Institute estimated that single/double summer time would benefit the tourist industry by another £1 billion a year. Some people now inflate that figure to £2 billion or even£3 billion, but although it is an old figure, it is a big one and I will stick with it. That is the increase that could be had from making the change.
	Support for lighter evenings comes from the Tourism Alliance, the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions, the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions and Tourism West Midlands. When Nigel Beard, a former Member of the House, introduced his Bill on the subject in 2004—I was a sponsor—he said that he had support from the British Resorts and Destinations Association and Visit Britain. Why do they support the change?

David Kidney: My hon. Friend has got me there: because Alton Towers is secluded, lots of people drive there. There is a huge coach industry to get people there and there is a rail ticket to Alton Towers, although the nearest rail station is at Stoke City. I was once the Labour candidate for a county council seat called Churnet Valley, which has Alton Towers in it. I had my election photograph taken on the platform of Alton railway station.  [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is quite right: it is currently a disused line. Alton Towers is one example. It is a big attraction, a big employer and a big earner of wealth.
	Shugborough in my constituency is the estate of the old Anson family. Lord Lichfield—Patrick Lichfield, the photographer—was the last ancestral occupant until his sad and sudden death last year. Shugborough is a working estate. It shows how life and work were carried out in about 1805. It attracts people for half the year and gets about 100,000 visitors a year. Shugborough says that if it could open for longer in the evenings and later into the autumn, it could extend its season, employ people for longer, encourage more visitors to the area and earn more income. It is a strong supporter of the measure.
	Other businesses are also speaking up. Stafford chamber of commerce—I find this almost surprising—is a strong supporter of the measure and has written to me to say so. Farming is still a significant industry in this country. From expressing strong opposition in 1944, that industry has completely turned around. The hon. Member for South Suffolk has received a letter of support for his measure. When Nigel Beard introduced his Bill in the House, he drew attention to our trade with European Union countries—that is about half our trade, affecting3 million jobs—and argued that joining the central European time zone would be helpful for our trade and industry and the invisible earnings of this countryfrom our pre-eminent financial services sector. The Minister's Department ought to think more of the interests that it represents and realise that the Bill is helpful.
	I will be brief, because what I am about to say has been said by the hon. Member for South Suffolk. The Bill will be good for health and feeling good. This is the week that a Public Accounts Committee report has said that we are not doing enough to tackle thegreat challenge of obesity. The report records thatin 2003-04, we opened 72 new playing fields and131 swimming pools. Most of those playing fields are probably not illuminated, so they will be used during hours of daylight. During most days, youngsters are at school and adults are at work. The only time that they have to use those facilities is after school or work, and of course at the weekend. If we want to encourage people not to be obese and to exercise and stay fit, we have to allow them to use the kinds of facilities that we are investing in.
	Greater participation in sport was the reason why Sport England supported Nigel Beard's Bill in 2004. He quoted Sport England as saying:
	"This increased opportunity of extra daylight after work, combined with our policy priority to get employers to do more in terms of promoting activity among their work force, could make a significant contribution towards driving up participation rates and delivering the associated health benefits that would stem from having an active and successful sporting nation."—[ Official Report, 8 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 147.]

David Kidney: That is an unfair characterisation of my arguments. I gave the example of my playing rugby, but people undertake many activities as their exercise.That exercise can be as little as walking the dog for20 minutes after work, or as much as playing a game of tennis before the light fades. It could be any one of a range of activities. I certainly did not claim that passing the Bill would solve the problem of obesity. I am saying that when we consider the balance of the arguments, we should take into account the fact that obesity carries a much greater weight in our arguments today than it did in the debate in 1971. That is a fair enough thing to say. I am a big supporter of the Bill, as I hope is clear from my speech, but contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, I do not claim to be the font of all knowledge, or say that my position is right and that everyone else must be wrong.
	One of the reasons why I support the Bill is that it includes a provision allowing for an experimental period, and for a panel to review the evidence. We would consider the evidence before we made a final decision one way or the other. For all the reasons that I have given, I support the Bill.

Alan Beith: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who, for almost the whole of his speech, put his case most moderately and carefully, and if anyone could have persuaded people, he could. However, at the end of his speech flights of fancy overtook him. As I pointed out, in the winter months the difference between darkness falling at 4 o'clock and darkness falling at 5 o'clock will not enable people to take part in sport and outdoor activities after work, much as I would welcome that.
	I have taken a—now unaccustomed—place on the Front Bench today because my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) could not be here, and asked me to stand in for her. I am particularly pleased to speak on a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), because I was once lucky in the private Members' Bill ballot and introduced the Energy Conservation Bill, and he was most sympathetic to it and took a constructive approach. Unfortunately, he temporarily departed from office and his successor was extremely obstructive. The Bill failed in that Session, but we got our revenge, because the then Member for Christchurch took the same Bill through its stages as the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. To complete the circle, I am now married to the then Member for Christchurch, which is the happiest of happy endings. So the legislation that the hon. Member for South Suffolk and I both supported was enacted—but I cannot promise such an outcome on this occasion.
	One aspect of the Bill—the double summer time element—accords with Liberal Democrat policy and has been widely advocated, particularly by my hon. Friends who represent west country constituencies in which there is much tourism, and much interest in tourism. In particular, my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) stress that the tourist season in the west country would benefit considerably. Many outdoor activities could go on until late in the evening in the summer. The Bill could have a marked effect on tourism, particularly in the south-west, but also in other parts of the country. There is not much of a downside to that aspect of the measure, apart from the two-hour change that will be involved if we do not alter the winter time. For some of us, the change would not make much difference, as we live in parts of the country where it is light until 11 o'clock in the summer. If it was light until midnight, it would not be problematic—indeed, in some ways it might be quite attractive.
	However, there are downsides to two aspects of the Bill, and two ways in which it does not accord with what the Liberal Democrats advocate. Those aspects are the winter time change and the prospect of having different time zones within the United Kingdom. I shall start by dealing with the winter situation. It is a basic fact that the northern half of Britain gets much more daylight in the summer, and much less daylight in the winter, than the southern half, so those who live in the northern half have a particular concern about the impact on our lives of the changes proposed in the Bill. Adding an hour in the winter would greatly increase the number of mornings in which people go to work in the dark.
	The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) intervened earlier; I can tell him that there would be about 80 more dark mornings in Carlisle, and only 30-odd more light evenings, which would not be a significant benefit. I do not propose to try to explain the mathematics of that. I do not argue that there are not advantages to be had from light evenings, but the key issue for most of us in the north and in Scotland is the increased number of dark mornings, which would mean that people had to go to work or school inthe dark.

Alan Beith: That is the other side of the coin, and we have to balance two different arguments. There is a tendency, of course, to extend the school day at both ends. In the morning, for example, children may go to school early to attend a breakfast club, and in the evening they may take part in after-school activities, or there may be arrangements in place so that their parents can collect them after finishing work. The school day has changed so that children less often go home at the hour mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Similarly, they more often go to school while it is still dark in the morning.
	We cannot ignore the problems that the changes would cause, especially in rural areas. Many of my constituents' children and children in other rural constituencies wait for school buses at the end of farm roads and at crossroads on dark mornings. Some of them are dropped off from one form of transport only to wait for another. Some children will be taken to primary school, while the middle school children are dropped off at a bus stop to wait for a bus to take them to their school. Expecting them to wait for transport on more cold dark mornings is both an imposition and a danger—and that danger extends beyond road safety concerns. Pupils who are over 16 have to pay £360 each for the privilege of travelling to school by bus in Northumberland, which is an atrociously high charge. As I travel around my constituency in the early morning between 8 and 9 am, I see many children waiting for buses at farm road ends and at crossroads. Under the proposals, they would far more often have to do so in the dark. The change would therefore pose a serious problem in significant parts of the country.
	I am even more worried, however, about the potential for two, or even three or four, time zones under the Bill, as that would be extremely difficult to cope with in border areas. Those of us who live on the English side of the border would not have a say or a vote on the matter if Scotland decided, for good reasons of its own, that it did not wish to make such a change, but we would be landed with consequences. We would not have the choice that the Scots would be offered in their Parliament about whether the new arrangements would suit our part of the country.

Alan Beith: I prefer the less cynical explanation that the hon. Member for South Suffolk included it because, like many Scottish Conservatives but unlike theFront Bench team, he is persuaded of the merits of devolution.  [ Interruption. ] I accept that changes are happening—I must keep up to date with the rapid policy changes of the Conservative Front-Bench team. The hon. Gentleman did not want to provoke opposition from people in Scotland who are concerned about such a change and believe that Scotland should decide the issue. In most circumstances that would be the attractive option, provided that it did not create serious difficulties in the border area.
	Tradesmen and professionals who provide services in the area surrounding the town where I live would have to look closely at their clients' addresses to determine whether a farm was on the English side of the border or on the Scottish side. If they visited it for an 11 am appointment it could, in fact, be 10 am, or if they visited it for a 12 o'clock appointment it could, in fact, be 11 am, and they may have made an appointment for the same time on the English side of the border. Arrangements would therefore be extremely complex, and some people who leave at 8 am to drive to Berwick, park their cars and walk to their offices for an8.30 start would have to leave at 7 am. I would be in an extraordinary position, because on Mondays the train that I catch to Westminster leaves Edinburgh at9 o'clock. That train would therefore arrive at Berwick before it left Edinburgh, which is unique, even for GNER. GNER offers a good service—and we are sorry that it has lost the east coast franchise; if it could prove that a train could reach its destination before the journey had even started, some of its difficulties might be eased.
	As has been said, the change would not be without complication or cost for the private sector. There will be costs for the railway industry resulting from different time zones, such as the need for timetables to explain such changes, and computer programmes that take account of them. There are therefore a series of practical problems, and my non-cynical assumption is that the hon. Member for South Suffolk does not really believe that his Bill would introduce different time zones, because he thinks that the Scots, whatever their concerns about the impact of the Bill on Scotland, will have no choice but to follow suit.

Alan Beith: Yes, but the choice changes if it is about a different time zone, as that would influence whether Scotland believes that it can take a different line. Many of my Scottish colleagues, with whom I have discussed the matter, believe that Scotland would be bounced into a decision that the Scots would not otherwisevote for.
	I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing us back to this decennial subject of debate and for presenting his case so well, but I do not think he has fully understood all the problems that it would present in northern England and Scotland, or the problems that would result from two time zones. Those would be a high price to pay for a Bill that includes a change that many of my colleagues would support—double summer time in the summer months.

Mark Lazarowicz: The other week I returned to my constituency in Edinburgh on the overnight sleeper. When I left Edinburgh Waverley at about 8 am it was pitch dark, the wind was howling and the rain was pouring—it was that horizontal rain which those of us who live on the east coast of Scotland have learned to love over the years, as no doubt did those before us. At that moment, I did not relish the thought that if the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) were enacted, I would have to wait not an hour or two, but two or three hours until it got lighter. That is the initial reaction of many Members from Scotland and the north of England, and I know that it is also the view of many of my constituents.
	However, I recognise that the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman for his Bill could have some merit in Scotland as well. As has been pointed out, we would not lose an hour of daylight, were the measure to be passed. It is a question of where the hour goes, and how the balance between darker mornings and lighter afternoons and evenings works out. I recognise that some of the benefits which, it is argued, the Bill would bring apply as much to Scotland as to other parts of the United Kingdom.
	Detailed analysis would show, I suspect, greater energy savings in Scotland as a result of the measure. Similarly, on road safety, if even 10 lives were saved each year and there were 100 few injuries on the roads as a result of the measure, I would regard that in itself as a justification for the Bill. Almost anything that saves a life on the roads is worthwhile considering. I have been lobbied by those from the tourist sector in my constituency who see the benefits for tourism, entertainment and other venues that would result from lighter evenings for a greater part of the year. In an area where there are a large number of businesses with international links with the rest of the European Union, there would be business advantages if, in effect, we adopted central European time.
	There are several arguments to show why the Bill would be beneficial to my constituency, Scotland and the rest of the UK, but there is also a danger of its supporters making claims that are somewhat excessive. The idea that people would be happier because they had lighter evenings, discounting the fact that they might get more depressed because of darker mornings, suggests a rather one-sided analysis of the evidence.
	Opponents of the Bill also adduce arguments that seem somewhat excessive. It is suggested, for example, that with lighter evenings, children would stay up later at night, would more be tired and would achieve worse outcomes in their schooling. If we are worried about children not getting to bed early enough because of lighter evenings, perhaps attention to the TV switchor the computer switch might achieve the desired objective. It is important to consider the argumentsin a reasonable way, rather than to allow excessive arguments to influence the debate for or against the proposed change.

Mark Lazarowicz: That is one of the reasons why I would like to study in much more details the arguments on both sides of the debate. For much of the year it is still light until 10 pm or 11 pm, and younger children would be in bed by then anyway, so I am not sure the extra hour would make a difference either way. It is important to examine the arguments in as reasoned and rational way as possible, and not to make excessive claims for or against the proposed change.
	The fact that there are arguments for and against, and the fact that the level of support for and against is fairly evenly split suggests that one's perspective on the Bill depends on one's personal circumstances. We heard that an opinion poll suggested that in the UK as a whole 54 per cent. were in favour of the change, but in Scotland only 40 per cent. were in favour and 48 per cent. were against. I suspect that in my constituency the split might be 50:50, as the further south one lives in Scotland, the more likely one is to support the proposal, by contrast with constituencies further north.
	It is easy to adopt a position without considering all the facts, so I believe the Bill merits further discussion in Committee. I attempted to gather a cross-section of views in my constituency in a consultation exercise. I did not get a large number of responses, but I got quite a few, and they were quite thoughtful responses. The views were fairly evenly balanced for and against a change, but marginally in favour. I would be happy to see the Bill go into Committee to allow further discussion and consideration of the arguments for and against, and to allow me to conduct a more detailed consultation among my constituents to find out their views on the issue. There are dangers, as I said,in exaggerating the supposed benefits arising fromthe Bill.

Mark Lazarowicz: That is an important point, to which I shall return.
	There is great merit in examining the Bill in more detail. Some of the claims made for it seem excessive. On the road safety issue, for example, I would strongly support the Bill if it could be shown that it would have the benefits that are suggested. In my constituency, most primary schools finish during daylight hours and that would not change if the Bill came into effect in Scotland, but they would face darker mornings on80 more days in the year, which could have a negative effect on road safety. However, the road safety benefits may not be just in relation to children coming home from school. Secondary school pupils come home later, of course. Consideration needs to be given to other activities that take place in the latter part of the day, which might have an impact on the road safety figures as well. I would want to consider all these factors in detail. I would therefore be happy for the Bill to proceed to Committee, if it makes progress today.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) pointed out, in its present form the Bill would have no automatic impact on my constituents because it would allow the Scottish Parliament to decide on the matter. The possibility that the Bill could create four new time zones in the UK is one of the aspects that makes it difficult for me to support it. In the consultation that I undertook, that was the one point that led to almost universal opposition from those who responded. I was surprised at how strongly my constituents who responded opposed that proposal.
	Obviously, it would not be impossible to have time zones in Scotland that were different from those in England. It is not the same as having different time zones in every town or city in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it would cause inconvenience, especially to business and, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, to travellers. The Bill's sponsors cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that one of its benefits would be bringing us into line with central European time, thus helping business, but not accept that separate time zones in different parts of the UK would have a negative effect on business in the UK.
	I appreciate that the Bill does not require Scotlandto have a separate time zone: it would give that power to the Scottish Parliament. However, as many hon. Members have said, in practical terms, the Scottish Parliament would not have any choice in the matter. Apart from the more extreme, rabid form of Scottish nationalist who used to write to one in green ink but now sends long e-mails without punctuation, no one would seriously suggest that Scotland should have a different time zone. Ironically, devolving powers for the matter might mean nothing. I assume that the hon. Member for South Suffolk, who is neither a rabid Scottish nationalist nor a rabid English nationalist, proposes the opt-out to give the Bill more chance of passing through the House, but that provision will make that more difficult.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the balanced and thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Northand Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). It was a significant contribution because the hon. Gentleman is from north of the border and he implied that the arguments are much more finely balanced there than the interventions from some of his colleagues suggested. He also said that he would like the Bill to progress to a Standing Committee. For that to happen, he will have to support the measure if there is a vote. I hope that his eloquence persuaded some of his colleagues who represent Scottish constituencies, and who have not, so far, been swayed by the oratory of those who support the Bill.
	I want to add a brief footnote to the excellent speech that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) made in introducing the Bill, which I am happy to sponsor. The House is grappling with a basic chronometric question: do we value daylight more highly at the beginning or the end of the day? To put it in the religious terms that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) used, how do we best realign the hours of daylight that the Almighty has given us with the human activities that we undertake now that we are no longer constrained by whether it is daylight? It is my modest observation that more human activity takes place at dusk than at dawn. It therefore follows that realigning daylight hours along the lines that my hon. Friend proposes would be beneficial.
	In the summer, when the days would be longer, we would have more daylight in the evening, when we tend to be awake rather than in the morning, when we tend to be asleep. Of course, that generality does not hold for some minorities. For example, we heard about agricultural workers and I shall deal with that point shortly. However, as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Stafford said, in the past 40 years, the balance of the argument has shifted decisively.
	I was Secretary of State for Transport the last time the matter was seriously considered. I was strongly in favour of the measure then and I remain so. I would be amazed if the advice that I was given 10 years ago is different from the advice that Ministers receive today. Indeed, I almost recognised some of the passages from the brief that I had some 10 years ago in the extract from  Hansard that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk quoted.
	Any Secretary of State for Transport who takes road safety seriously would grab with both hands the opportunities that the Bill affords to reduce the tolls on our roads. In an uncharacteristic intervention, the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Competition Policy, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), implied that either we accepted the Bill or we found other ways of reducing the toll on the roads. It is not an either/or situation. We should do both. I hope that the Minister will put the matter straight later.
	An extract from the 1989 Transport and Road Research Laboratory report was quoted earlier. Let me read another extract:
	"The groups which benefited most from the change were those aged 5-15, pedestrians and those living in Central England and Southern Scotland."
	Some Labour Members who intervened represent southern Scottish constituencies and I hope that they will be influenced by the TRRL's comments.
	The position of the Secretary of State for Transport should be clear. However, there is an added complication in that the Secretary of State for Transport for England is also the Secretary of State for Scotland—a dramatic personification of the West Lothian question. Does he put first his responsibilities as Secretary of State for Transport for England and thus support the Bill, or his residual domestic responsibilities as Secretary of State for Scotland and thus, I fear, oppose it?

George Young: That is a helpful intervention, but I am not sure that it answers my question: what is the position of the person who is both Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland? Will he be in favour of the Bill or against it? I hope thathis position can be made absolutely clear in an intervention from the Dispatch Box.

George Young: I shall come to that point. I very much hope that we end up with one time for the United Kingdom. That would be my ideal solution. I have no objection to the clause in the Bill that gives people in Scotland the opportunity to decide whether they want that solution. If Labour Members look at the Nigel Beard Bill, I believe that they will see that it had exactly the same provision for an opt-out as this Bill. This is not some Conservative conspiracy to reopen old wounds; it is a repetition of a provision in a Bill introduced by a Labour Member of Parliament.
	In passing, let me say that I very nearly was Secretary of State for Scotland. In 1979, the Downing street switchboard confused me with our late and much loved friend George Younger, and I was summoned to take a much higher position than the one with which I eventually ended up.
	My point is on the issue of balance. The components of the argument have remained virtually unchanged for the past 100 years, but I strongly believe that the balance of the argument has shifted decisively over the past 40 years. As has been pointed out, the numbers working in agriculture have continued to decline. One can contrast the relaxed attitude of the NFU today, as exemplified in the extract from the letter read out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk, with the strong views of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, as reported in 1970 in Hamish Gray's maiden speech. That shows that the strong feelings of 30 or 40 years about agriculture have diminished.
	There has been an enormous growth in leisure time, both as the numbers of hours worked have declined, and as longevity has increased. People typically engage in those activities at the end of the day, not at the beginning. The importance of tourism as a domestic earner has been mentioned. According to one estimate, tourism earnings could increase by £3 billion were the Bill introduced. Mention has also been made of obesity, which was simply not an issue the last time that the House considered the matter. Were there a free vote on the Bill today, I believe that the outcome wouldbe dramatically different from that of the free votein 1970.
	Perhaps the most important shift has been in concern about climate change. Again, 30 or 40 years ago, that was not right at the top of the agenda. All the studies show, however, that my hon. Friend's Bill would lead to less peaking of demand, with important consequences for the capacity of generators. A 3 per cent. saving in energy consumption is a real contribution to meeting some of our environmental targets.
	All the factors against the Bill have diminished in importance over the past 40 years. We have heard about postal workers, and my general observation is thatpost is delivered slightly later in the day now than 30 or 40 years ago. Of course, postal workers still have to get up in the dark, but more of their deliveries now take place later.

George Young: I do not think that that contradicts my point that the centre of gravity of the delivery round is now later than it was 30 or 40 years ago.
	The final factor that has changed in the past 30 or40 years is devolution. I do not want to impose on the Scots a time regime with which they do not feel comfortable. I do not want the Scots to impose on England a time regime with which it does not feel comfortable. As I made clear a few moments ago, I would prefer one regime for the whole of the country, and I hope that that is the outcome.
	On the Scottish position, the Library has found a paper from the Centre for Technology Management at Cambridge, which put it delicately:
	"Many Scots remember the experiment from 1968 to 1971 as causing an increase in road accidents. Folk memory is at variance with the evidence...increased accidents in the morning were offset by a much greater reduction in the evening".
	It concludes:
	"The available evidence is strongly in favour of Lord Tanlaw's proposed Bill",
	which is the same as my hon. Friend's.
	I strongly hope that the House will support a pilot, which will enable us to get more conclusive, definitive evidence to allow us to take a step that should have been taken many years ago.

Rosemary McKenna: It is a pleasure to followthe right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire(Sir George Young) and to listen to his words of wisdom, as I always do. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on obtaining a slot for private Member's Bill; whether he has made the right choice of private Member's Bill is a matter for debate.
	The last time that I discussed the issue was on television with someone who was trying—unsuccessfully—to become the Conservative mayoral candidate in the first London mayoral elections. It was more a publicity stunt than a serious debate or a real attempt to raise the issue.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) took me back to the distant past when he talked of playing rugby in cold, wet conditions. It reminded me of getting up very early on a Saturday morning when I was a teenager, going on to the red blaes hockey pitch and being whacked across the shins by a hockey ball or hockey stick. It was incredibly cold. I agree that that is not necessarily a reason for people not to take part in sport, but very few of us are willing to go out in the depths of winter, and very few sports can be played then. Most of the problem relates not to time but to climate and temperature.
	My main objection to the Bill, however, is that this is not a huge issue, and not something that we should be spending a great deal of our time discussing. I think that the present arrangement is a very satisfactory compromise between the wishes of those who prefer lighter mornings and those who prefer lighter evenings. The fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) put the case for the other side of the argument is an indication that the issue is not about north versus south, but about the fact that some people prefer lighter mornings and others prefer longer, lighter evenings.
	If this were a huge issue—and it is certainly not being discussed in the highways and byways and pubs and clubs of Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East—it would be because of the possibility of four different time zones in the United Kingdom. In my opinion, that way lies disaster and the Bill should be opposed for that reason alone, although, as I have said, I oppose it principally because this is not a huge issue and we should not be spending a great deal of our time on it. I have never been lobbied by a constituent on this issue, but the Bill would be disastrous for the towns and villages in my constituency.

Rosemary McKenna: The hon. Gentleman is right. We could go on and on listing such anomalies, but those arguments have been well debated.
	I conclude by emphasising the point I have been making throughout my speech. There is no reason to change the existing arrangements, which provide a satisfactory compromise between those who prefer lighter mornings and those who prefer lighter evenings. We have a settled position. There is no huge lobbyfor change. People across the country are satisfied. Whenever experiments take place, we revert to the existing situation.

Robert Key: I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) in introducing the Bill. I hope that it will receive a Second Reading so that it can go into Committee for the detailed scrutiny that Members on both sides of the House say it deserves. So far, my hon. Friend has won all the arguments. The debate has been a pale shadow of the one 11 years ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) sought to bring in a similar Bill. A three-year experiment of single/double summer time would be sensible. It would involve moving the clocks forward one hour throughout the year: Greenwich mean time plus one in winter and GMT plus two in summer.
	I have no pretensions to represent Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. In my constituency, we take the long view, so speaking as the Member of Parliament for Stonehenge, I point out that we have particular views about the length of day. There has been much misapprehension—all those happy campers who want to celebrate the summer solstice at Stonehenge on21 June must be deeply disappointed to learn that our forebears well understood that the winter solsticewas the important one. The significant date was21 December, and the placing of the Heel stone was based on that date. What really mattered was where the midwinter sun rose, because that marked the dawn of the new year, the change of the seasons and the prospect of more food so that people could survive.
	Taking the long view, I remind the House that in terms of mother nature, goddess earth, druid beliefs or anything else, the immutable fact of life is that what we do and say today has no bearing whatever on what geography dictates. That misapprehension has surfaced in speech after speech today from our colleagues from Scotland.
	It would of course be better if we could do as our forebears did. I am sure that we should all be happier, more sensible, more balanced and have better judgment if we rose with the sun and went to bed at sundown. That, however, is not an option in the 21st century.

Robert Key: No, I certainly will not give way to the hon. Lady.
	My second point in response to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) is that many millions of people all around the world who live close to time zones—I accept that there are some difficulties about where the boundary falls—manage perfectly well. As for the broadcasting argument, perhaps some Members never watch Sky News, CNN or BBC News 24, but it does not really matter whether they are watching at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock. I am bound to say that the broadcasting argument is not a strong one.
	I support the Bill for straightforward reasons. First, it saves lives. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I used to be a transport Minister, though a very junior animalin comparison with him. I was the Minister with responsibility for roads and road safety and I heardthe same arguments as the current Minister with responsibility for roads, which have been repeated today. The fact that we can prevent another 200 deaths a year and a further 200 serious accidents seems to me to be a very good reason that we cannot ignore, especially when we have advice from such august bodies as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Child Accident Prevention Trust and the National Association of Head Teachers. We would do well to listen to them. The fact that the Bill will save lives is a really important consideration.

Robert Key: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. It is also right that we have a peculiar view of the geography of Europe in this country. The fact is that the Greenwich meridian almost goes through Bordeaux and Madrid, and I would much rather be aligned with all the major economies of Europe. As the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) implies, that is a far more telling argument than what happened in Portugal.
	My next reason for supporting the Bill is that it saves energy. The evidence is there that we can save 3 per cent. of our energy. Whether or not we are in favour of nuclear power, windmills or whatever, what actually matters is that we use less energy. As the experts tell us, the Bill will encourage us to use up to 3 per cent. less energy. The peaks of energy consumption will belower, we will reduce carbon emissions and we will cut fuel bills.
	My next reason is that the tourism industry isin favour of the Bill. When the hon. Memberfor Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East (Rosemary McKenna) told us that there was no pressure from industry to support the Bill, it is obvious that she has not read much of the briefing—I suspect it was sent to her as to all of us—showing that 200,000 tourism businesses in the UK, including those in Scotland, specifically support it.

Robert Key: Not at all. I am talking about the importance of tourism and I am not sure that that is an argument for carbon increase. One thing I would like to do is encourage more people to go on holiday in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland rather than fly off to the sun. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would embrace that, but he doesnot seem to be encouraging such tourism in his constituency, which surprises me—but there we are.
	My next reason for supporting the Bill results from the impact that it will have on business. I am astonished that Scottish Members of Parliament here today seem to think that the financial services industry in Scotland would not benefit from coming into the same time zone as the rest of its major competitors, notably Frankfurt, and that it does not suffer from the current muddle that disadvantages the City of London and Edinburgh. People in the United States, China, India and all around the world simply cannot understand why the major financial capital of the world can be in a different time zone from other European financial capitals, such as Frankfurt.

Robert Key: Because those financial capitals are running their economies closely to natural times and time zones, whereas we are distorting further than we need to distort. It is very straightforward. I would rather we went in the direction proposed.
	I also want to take head on the argument about farmers. I am sure that if you represent farmers, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will appreciate that they do not pay any attention to clocks. They pay attention to the time that the sun rises and sets and to the needs of their stock. That, not what the clocks says, determines when a farmer gets up, and we need to bear that in mind. It is significant that the National Farmers Union has changed its view and now supports the Bill. We should bear in mind that very great change.
	On the Scottish question, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I was working during the last trial between 1968 and 1971. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk was working too. I was working in Scotland—I was a teacher in Musselburgh. In the winter before the trial took place in Scotland, there were no games in the afternoon. We could not hold them; it was dark. When the trial was on, teachers across Scotland were able to organise sports, coach athletics and, above all, get children outside and exercised. I am proud of being a Scottish-registered teacher, but when I came to teach in England, I found that doing all that was so much easier. I look back with horror on the dark afternoons when there was no sport for hundreds of thousands of children in Scotland. The proposal would be of enormous benefit to them.
	Of course, Scotland could opt out, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk has introduced a sensible arrangement for that. I doubt that it will. It is important to remember that there will always be far fewer hours of daylight in Scotland in winter than in England. It does not matter whether we get our six hours of daylight from 8 am to 2 pm or at any other time, except for the statistical arguments in favour of things such as safety and energy consumption.
	Nothing can change the length of the day orthe night, but the English look with envy at the considerable hours of daylight in Scotland in mid-summer. I have never heard one of my constituents being chippy about all the extra daylight that the Scots get in summer. I hope that that attitude will be reciprocated. Thank goodness—vive la différence. It is wonderful that we can have different hours of daylight. That is one reason that I would never like to live in the tropics where there are no seasons and 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness throughout the year. Thank goodness for a bit of difference.
	The Bill is sensible, practical and logical. We should allow it to go through to Standing Committee for closer scrutiny.

Charles Hendry: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), both on securing this important debate and on his choice of subject for his private Member's Bill. The issue has been addressed many times over the years, and it is timely to address it again now, as there are strong sentiments about it across the country. I also commend him for the way in which he introduced the Bill, and thank him for taking us on a charming voyage through the history of time. The only point at which he seemed a little perplexed was when the conversation was about grumpiness, and whether people were more grumpy in the morning or the evening. Grumpiness is a state of mind unknown to my hon. Friend, who brings Tigger-like qualities to the House. He showed his irrepressible good nature and good humour in his speech.
	There are certainly strong arguments in favour of the Bill, many of which have been rehearsed today, and my constituents in south-east England would strongly support the change in hours. My children, who are at school, would be delighted by it, because in this term of the academic year, they would love to be able to go out and play sport after school. One reason why this term is difficult for many schools is the lack of opportunity to take part in activities after school.
	It is evident that many expert groups outside the House have opinions on the subject, and support the Bill. I received a letter from GEM Motoring Assist, which is based in my constituency. It used to be the Guild of Experienced Motorists, and has some 65,000 members. The letter says:
	"100 lives and around 400 serious injuries would be saved each year if the scheme were adopted."
	We should recognise the importance of such contributions.
	However, the decision should be taken nationally, and must not fragment the country. There are serious dangers threatening the union of the country. Issues such as those dealt with in the Bill could increase the pressure for fragmentation, and we must be wary of that. Some of the arguments that we have heard focused exclusively on the advantages of lighter evenings, but did not address the disadvantages of darker mornings.
	We heard some thoughtful speeches. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made a well-researched speech, in which he paid much attention to detail. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is no longer in the Chamber, spoke about postal deliveries. Many of us visited our post offices and delivery offices over the Christmas period, and we saw the people who get up at or4 o'clock or 4.30 every morning in order to be at their offices at 5 o'clock. They certainly would not welcome an extra hour of winter darkness.
	One of the few mischievous comments in the debate was made by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who said that the great advantage of the measure for him was that it would put us in the same time zone as the rest of Europe. That was probably the least persuasive argument that he could have thought of, in terms of encouraging people to support us. The fact is that, of the other countries in the EU, two have the same time frame as we do, 14 are on central European time, and eight are two hours different from us, so there is significant variation. To suggest that this is a European issue is a bit misleading.
	There has been an element of over-claiming, too. The suggestion was made that the change would solve the problem of obesity, and I found that slightly far-fetched. It would be a wonderful way of dieting, and we could simply change the hours now and again. I would be delighted to find such a simple solution to the problem, but I think that it was an over-claim. As for the suggestion that the Bill would make us all happier, I checked the greatest indicator of unhappiness—the suicide rate—and discovered that Sweden and Finland have the highest suicide rates in the world. Intriguingly, however, more suicides take place in those countries in spring and summer, so people are most dissatisfied and more likely to commit suicide when there are more hours of daylight. We should therefore be careful about making a connection between human happiness and the setting of clocks. Too much was claimed, too, about the effects on tourism.

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend makes a tempting offer. We will not prevent the Bill from progressing to the next stage. There is scope for further debate, so we shall not vote against it. However, there are a wide range of reasons for holding further debate before the experiment starts.
	We have a fundamental concern about different time zones in England and Scotland, and the complications that that would create. Other difficulties would affect business. For example, this morning, I contacted a call centre for Virgin Atlantic and was told that it opened at 9 o'clock. Under the Bill, it would have to say, "The office opens at 9 o'clock in England but at 8 o'clock in Scotland." That would cause unnecessary confusion.
	I hope that the Minister will not try to talk out the Bill—indeed, it would be challenging to do that for an hour and a half. I hope that we have raised some of our anxieties about the measure. I emphasise thatthe overriding concern and objection of those on the Conservative Front Bench is that it may lead to different time zones in England and Scotland. That would be undesirable.

Russell Brown: My hon. Friend is right, although I am not sure that the Ministry of Defence will be too happy about his saying where the supplies for Afghanistan and Iraq are coming from. On both sides of the border there are common themes of social life, employment and business. That is important to people, hence my deep concern about the Bill.
	As others have mentioned, opinion on a possible move to central European time was canvassed in a 1989 Green Paper. The responses revealed a divergence of opinion that I believe still exists. The debate in Parliament in 1996 on the private Member's Bill that proposed the introduction of central European time revealed the strong views that remain, and the Bill failed to secure enough parliamentary support to proceed.
	It has also been mentioned today that the hon. Member for South Suffolk was interviewed on Radio 4's "Today" programme. I understand that the Radio 4 message board showed a wide divergence of views, suggesting that a change would not be universally popular. A recent YouGov poll showed that while the Bill's proposals may be popular in some areas, theyare less popular—although perhaps not entirely unpopular—in others.
	As I said in an intervention earlier, the climate as much as the lack of light precludes outdoor activities in the winter. Sport, social activities and tourism may all be affected. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) recounted his experiences when he was teaching in Musselburgh—the dark dull afternoons and the dark days. We undoubtedly witness that. Sometimes lights go on as early as 2 o'clock in the afternoon. That can happen down here as much as further north. It is the climate as much as the daylight that determines that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) mentioned that there was little Glasgow rugby activity taking place for strong young individuals—men and women nowadays. I reminded him that that was down to red blaes pitches more than anything else. Only those who had something akin to suicidal tendencies would be diving about on those pitches. They are not good for the complexion.

Russell Brown: Yes. That is an important point. It is about culture as much as anything else. It is not just about an individual or a community and their body clocks.
	I come from an industrial background where safety is vital. I always used to say to colleagues when I was their representative in the workplace that I never ever wanted to go to a household to explain to someone in the family that there had been a horrible accident.The risk of industrial accidents is an important consideration and we must consider seriously opportunities to avoid them.
	Road safety is another vital issue. Colleagues have talked about the Bill's potential to save 100 lives. As far as I am concerned, that should be roundly applauded by everyone. If we can save one life, we are saving families from the trauma and tragedy that they face when they regrettably get that knock on the door. As someone who lost a member of my family in a road traffic accident a number of years ago, I know that that hits families very hard. It can be hard for them to recover from that; we are discussing time, but time is not the great healer for some households.
	Road safety is important, but under the terms of the Bill, which provides for daylight hours to be changed as people see fit, some localities will clearly benefit, while others may face long, dark mornings. If we were to examine the detail of the body of statistics that has been built up over the years, I am sure that we would find that it is likely that there will be more tragic accidents, deaths and injuries on the roads in Scotland.

Russell Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Some of the arguments that are being made in this debate can be shaped or moulded into whatever form we want, but the fact remains that for some individuals and families today's roads can result in tragedy. What is significant is not merely the fact that people are on the roads, but how they use that time on the roads—for example, they should drive with proper care and attention. The Department for Transport and my colleagues north of the border—as well as those in the other devolved Administrations—need to do much more to ensure that we have greater road safety.
	People in the workplace is another importantissue. We have heard about the postal workers. Unfortunately, some of the statistics show that darker mornings result in greater risk to them. Some people might say, "Well, it's an insignificant risk" but any risk is a risk, and it is probably not a risk worth taking. I accept that there is no evidence that accidents at work would increase as a result of a change in the hour, and I am aware that there is pressure for change, but that pressure is not necessarily coming from health and safety representatives in workplaces.
	I am conscious of the time, but I want to address clauses 5, 6 and 7 and the opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to consider what position to take on the change.
	As I have said, this is something of a false choice; Scotland and the rest of the UK go along with what happens here. We all know of the problems that can arise; however, the hon. Member for South Suffolk has decided in his wisdom to include these clauses in the Bill, thereby allowing the Scottish Parliament to examine this issue. Let me make it clear that I have every confidence in my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament taking the decision that is right for the people of Scotland and to their full benefit, but I do have anxieties based on the geographical location not only of my constituency, but of where I live.
	As I pointed out at the beginning of the debate, following the boundary changes of almost two years ago, I no longer live in the constituency that I represent. My MP is the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—[Hon. Members: "Where is he?"] He is not here today, unless he is elsewhere on the parliamentary estate. The Bill undoubtedly raises issues for the 3,000-odd people who cross the border daily for employment purposes and to attend social events. It is not just a one-way process, moreover; people cross from both directions in the morning to go to work, for example.
	Business would be affected by the Bill. Someone mentioned earlier those who drive delivery vehicles, for example, for a living. I tried to imagine how the Bill would affect a small business with depots either side of the border that employs, say, 10 drivers. They would have to drive from one depot across the border to deliver to customers in one time zone, and then go to the other depot to pick up the next delivery. They would have to hurry in order to deliver to businesses before they close—businesses that they would not previously have expected to be closed.

Greg Hands: The hon. Gentleman must concede that people have to cross various time zones throughout the world, such as the central and eastern standard time zones in the US, and the various Australian time zones. One could make an equally strong argument for the opportunities that creating two time zones would provide. One could start shopping an hour earlier across the border, and finish an hour later on one'sown side.

Angus MacNeil: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on his success in the ballot. I am sure that many other hon. Members envy that success, but I am naturally disappointed by the subject that he has chosen, because it would have a serious impact on my constituency.
	The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) mentioned that Stonehenge was in his constituency. I represent Callanish, on the west side of Lewis, which is of equal—if not greater—antiquity to Stonehenge. Time has been well marked on the islands for many years. Callanish and Lewis are to the north of my constituency and I am from Barra to the south. Barra is on the line of latitude of 57° and Lewis is on the line of latitude of 58°, so there is a 10-minute difference in the length of the day between the northern and southern ends of my constituency.
	One could say that today we have been struggling against the forces of darkness, which want to plunge us into darker mornings. As the representative of not only a northerly constituency, but a westerly one, I am beholden to ensure that we are not unduly damaged by what is—as the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) pointed out—an effort by those from below a line from the Wash to the Severn. There was a part of me that thought that that very attitude is the reason that Cameron's Conservatives are not marching well north of the border, but that was dispelled somewhat by the hon. Gentleman, who made a good case for retaining the status quo.
	As hon. Members know, I am primarily a Scottish nationalist, but I have become a bit of an English nationalist in the past couple of years, as shown by my lapel badge, which has a St. George's cross on it as well as a St. Andrew's cross. We should bear it in mind that if the Bill were to become law it would leave vast areas of what is currently the United Kingdom—everything north of Manchester—with no sun before 9 am fortwo months of the winter. So my English nationalism comes to the fore in an attempt to ensure that many of my friends in England are not plunged into darker mornings by what I have called the forces of darkness. It is important that we make sure that significant portions of the year are not spent in darkness.
	Unfortunately, we cannot go down the two time zones route. The UK is an unbalanced union; as we know from the composition of this place alone, which has only 10 per cent. Scottish membership, the Union between Scotland and England is not a union of equals. The broadcasting situation would make the time zone possibilities a non-starter. We cannot have two different time zones in the UK.

Angus MacNeil: I absolutely welcome further devolution of powers from Westminster to Holyrood; indeed, I hope that the Conservatives will go much further and devolve to Scotland all powers pertaining to Scotland that currently reside in Westminster. The reality, however, is that we have to live in the world we are in, where for the broadcasting situation in particular we cannot operate two time zones. Thatis why I have to exercise my right as a Scottish constituency Member—currently; it might not last too much longer, because we may not have Scottish Members for ever and a day. As a Scottish Member of the UK Parliament, I have to make sure that my constituents and those of many other Members are well represented.

David Howarth: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's position asthe representative of a very westerly and northerly constituency. However, his point about broadcasting does not seem convincing. In England, people with cable television can receive the BBC channels for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, which often show different programmes from those on the English channels. Surely, the broadcasting system could easily adapt to new conditions.

Robert Key: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to Portugal, but is he not aware that it is so far south of England, let alone his constituency, that it has much more equal periods of day and night at all times ofthe year? To quote what happened in Portugal is no argument worth its salt. It is a desperate argumentto deploy.

John Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil), who has spoken about the forces of darkness. That is strange, because he is usually part of the forces of darkness. For once, we seem to be on the same side and fighting the forces of darkness. We usually differ, but we agree in this case.
	I have made many notes on the speeches in the debate. I wrote a note to myself that we were having an anti-Union debate. But the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) helped to relieve some of those fears when he agreed that he would be happy with the withdrawal of clauses 5, 6 and 7. Having said that, there were many other Members who did their best to try to send me down the road of making a speech on that subject. I will try to avoid that, although I will touch on it in a few places.
	Why are we having this debate? Business was mentioned earlier. We have 24-hour news coverage, permanent access to the internet, flexible working, flexible hours of working and working from home. It strikes me that changing time to suit businesses and how people work is spurious. We can cover every angle of 24 hours. People who are in employment know what their employment consists of, and when they take on a job it is explained to them what their hours of work will be. Under those circumstances, the question of whether Tokyo, London, Frankfurt or New York is up and running should not be part of our discussion. Opposition Members might feel differently, because business might be more important to them than it isto me.
	I share something with the hon. Member for—I will call it the Western Isles, because I am not very good with the Gaelic. His father and I were members of the same union. I would like to think that we probably shared the same politics, but perhaps not, because fathers and sons are very close with their politics—although in some cases, they are completely opposite. I happen to have the same politics as my father.
	Climate change was also mentioned. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am the chairman of the all-party group on nuclear energy and, as such, and given the Government's energy review last year, I take a great interest in energy and its various aspects. As a group, we put in a submission that I am glad to say was similar to what the Government came back with. In looking at those matters, we had discussions about climate change and its effects.
	While I was a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, we visited the United States. It was explained to me that summer is a peak time for energy usage these days, because more and more people have air conditioning, large fridges and various other bits and pieces on the go all the time. I was surprised by what I learned, particularly in an area such as Chicago, which has severe winters. I would have thought that the peak time for energy use in that area was the height of winter. But, no, the peak time now applies equally to summer and winter. In effect, energy consumption is practically a straight line for 365 days of the year in the United States. When we came back, we took evidence from various energy companies. I asked, "What was—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the Serjeant at Arms please investigate the delayin the No Lobby?

John Robertson: I hate this—I agree with the hon. Gentleman again. I have a feeling that, if the Bill goes through in its present state, with clauses 5, 6 and 7, it could be the Conservative party's poll tax again.  [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but I have to point out that you had one Member elected in the last election, one Member in the previous election and none in the one before that. Therefore, you should not be laughing. You did something that the people of Scotland did not agree with—we were used as guinea pigs. You forced something on us that we did not want. The change of hours in the Bill is not wanted by the people of Scotland. If I am right and you forcethis Bill—

John Robertson: That is a good point.
	I have been looking at the times of daylight and when the cut-offs are. The hon. Member for Wealden made a good point about people from the south of England. When we look at some of the cities in the north, there is not a big difference between the north of England and even Cardiff, which is not exactly the north of England, and the borders of Scotland. The difference between Aberdeen and Newcastle is not great. Therefore, Conservative Members have not thought about their own representation within England, let alone Scotland. It would be much better if we were to look at the matter in the round as a United Kingdom Parliament. We should accept or reject the Bill today on the premise that we are voting for a Bill for the whole of the United Kingdom.
	I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway feel strongly about the Act of Union. I have said before in a speech that there is only one Unionist party in this Parliament and it is the Labour party, because the other parties have shown on many occasions that they disregard other parts of the United Kingdom, not just Scotland, and it has come backto haunt them. They need only look at their representation in Scotland and Wales to see how the Welsh and Scots feel about them. If they want to reverse that, it is time they started to look at themselves—as they did when I was a young boy—as the Conservative and Unionist party. It is still the only party in Scotland that ever got more than 50 per cent. of the vote in a general election. That was in the late 1950s. By the 1990s, it was gone. They have to ask themselves why. It is Bills such as this that is causing part of the problem.
	I will leave some time for the Minister to say a few words. I hope that he will answer all the questions and all the problems that Members have raised. However, I say to Members—do not support the Bill.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulatethe hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) onhis success in the private Members' ballot and on his excellent speech introducing the Bill. During the debate, much has been made of the fact that this issue divides Scotland and England. For the avoidance of any doubt about my geographic origin, in case my classic cockney accent is confusing anyone, as the annunciator is showing, my constituency is Poplarand Canning Town in east London. However, I am speaking for the Government and I can assure the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who asked a question earlier, that that includes the Secretary of State for Transport.
	The Scottish question is a real one. It was dealt with effectively in the constructive contribution of the hon. Member for Wealden. It is true that the Union is under threat but, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) mentioned, even the Scottish National party opposes this measure. It might have been sympathetic towards it if it had thought that it might help to secure its final objective of independence for Scotland. However, the suggestion from the nationalist Benches that the hon. Member for South Suffolk was Darth Vader in another guise might have been stretching the compliment too far.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman accurately points out that I have the honour of being the appointed Minister for London. I and other Members have been serving on the Greater London Authority Bill Committee for the past few weeks, in which we have debated many issues relating to the GLA, the Mayor and the assembly. As the hon. Gentleman knows, sometimes the Government have agreed with the Mayor and at other times they have agreed with the Assembly, depending on the weight of the arguments deployed in respect of the various clauses in that Bill and the issues involved. The fact that the assembly is in favour and the fact that the Mayor has pronounced in favour are significant points of opinion that we would be foolish not to take into account.
	Many wider questions have been raised by Members in the debate, which I will try to address, although I think that time will defeat me. However, some of them are significant questions, and I do not wish to detract in any way from many of the strong arguments putby the hon. Member for South Suffolk and other Members.

Jim Fitzpatrick: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall say in response to that that I have allowed myself to be distracted.
	The hon. Member for South Suffolk raised a number of strong arguments in support of his Bill, and thereis no doubt that the proposed measure is worthy of serious consideration. In fact, it is so worthy of consideration that we tend to examine the same, or a similar, proposition every few decades—and we are discussing it again today. If there was any disappointing aspect of his speech, it was his glossing over of the last substantial vote in the House on this issue in 1971. I have referred to that in a couple of interventions. There was a free vote and it resulted in a majority of 285 in favour of abandoning the experiment that had been taking place. There must have been some weight behind that decision if, after having lived through the experiment for three years, so many Members in all parts of the House were persuaded to say, "We want to go away from it"—and Portugal did exactly the same after it experienced four years of such an experiment.
	If there had been strong support in the House today for the hon. Gentleman's Bill, more Members would have supported his closure motion, which would have secured an opportunity to move the Bill into Committee for consideration. However, there are a number of points that I want to put on the record before we get to that point—
	 It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	 Debate to be resumed on Friday 2 February.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate on the worrying trend of increased unemployment in north Northamptonshire, which provides me with the opportunity to put my concerns to the Minister. I thank him for his attendance and I look forward to his response to my concerns and suggestions. He is a fine, fair-minded and able Minister, and I am sure that we will have a constructive debate. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) is here to give his views to the Minister, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He works tirelessly on his constituents' behalf, and I note that he, too, has grave concerns about the rising level of unemployment in north Northamptonshire.
	I should say at the outset that I am not trying to score party political points through this debate; I merely want to highlight the facts to the Minister and urge the Government to take action to reverse the rise in unemployment in north Northamptonshire. In the Wellingborough constituency, unemployment has risen by 19 per cent. since this time last year. Unfortunately, 42 other constituencies in the United Kingdom saw an even greater increase last year. Some 1,536 people in Wellingborough now claim jobseeker's allowance—2.8 per cent. more than did so in December 1997. The facts are there, and it is clear that unemployment in Wellingborough is higher now than it was in December 1997. The same is true of 82 other constituencies.
	The Labour party's 1997 election manifesto stated the following:
	"We will attack long-term unemployment...Our goal will be educational and employment opportunities for all...Our long-term objective is high and stable levels of employment...Labour's welfare-to-work programme will attack unemployment and break the spiral of escalating spending on social security...We will co-ordinate benefits, employment and career services, and utilise new technology to improve their quality and efficiency."
	There is nothing in that that I would disagree with. The present Government inherited a healthy and growing economy. As the Chancellor likes to point out at every opportunity, the economy continues to grow. Sowhy do we have rising unemployment in north Northamptonshire? Something has gone wrong somewhere: if a Government have inherited a healthy economy, unemployment should not continue to rise. Labour's 1997 manifesto promises have not materialised in Wellingborough, for whatever reason. We have a problem, and it is time for the Government to recognise it and do something about it. I am not interested in hearing Government spin and rhetoric on these clear facts; I just want to know why things have gone wrong and what we can all do to reverse this worrying trend.
	Of course, there is one clear and major explanation for rising unemployment in Wellingborough—the decline of the manufacturing industry. Northamptonshire has historically been a manufacturing county, and it is that sector that has provided so many of the population's jobs over the years. Manufacturing industry is, of course, the engine house of the British economy. Without it, there could be no public services—the very public services of which the Government like to boast. None the less, because of the rapid decline in manufacturing jobs under this Government, those jobs are no longeravailable to the workers of Wellingborough.
	In 1991, 32 per cent. of employees' jobs in Wellingborough were in manufacturing. In 1997, that figure had fallen by only 1 per cent., to 31 per cent. However, by 2005 only 19 per cent. of employees' jobs were in manufacturing industries in the constituency. That huge decrease has had a knock-on effect on the number of people unemployed and those on jobseeker's allowance in Wellingborough.
	A 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people employed in manufacturing in Wellingborough should be of great concern not only locally but nationally. At the beginning of 2005, the British Chambers of Commerce stated, in response to figures for industrial and manufacturing output produced by the Office for National Statistics:
	"The BCC still expects a modest upturn in manufacturing over the next two years. But it is clear that growth will remain totally inadequate. Hopes of manufacturing recovery have so far been bitterly disappointed."
	In December of last year, in response to the October 2006 manufacturing output figures, the BCC stated:
	"The manufacturing figures remain weak by historical standards and the recovery is fragile and vulnerable."
	It is clear that manufacturing industry will continue to decline in this country, and will do so even more given the recent increase in interest rates.
	The Government needs to take manufacturing industry seriously and create an environment in which it can expand rather than contract. One of our problems in Wellingborough is that we do not have many large companies. Instead we have many small to medium-sized companies. When one of those closes down, it causes a faint ripple through the county, but does not appear on the national stage and therefore no major action is taken. But after a series of medium sized companies have closed, the effects gain momentum and have huge implications for employment in the constituency.
	Small and medium-sized companies are much more affected by the bureaucracy and red tape of Government regulations than their larger counterparts are. Businesses in my constituency are suffering and failing because they are being strangled by the enormous amount of bureaucracy and red tape imposed on them. Labour's election promise in 1997 was to cut unnecessary red tape for small businesses, but I am often approached by people with businesses in my constituency that are struggling.
	Only this morning I launched my business breakfast forum in my constituency, and yet again local business people came to tell me of the problems that theyare having with regulation and bureaucracy. The Government may argue, with some justification, that many of those regulations come from the European Union. However, that argument does not wash, because of the Government's willingness to do anything that the European Commission wants rather than stand up for the interests of British business. That leads to unemployment in my constituency.
	Thanks to the British people, we have stopped the Government taking us into the euro, so we perform much better than many of our European Union colleagues. But because of the Government's actions, our manufacturing industries cannot stand up against the competitiveness of China and India, and the economy of the United States. We need to look urgently at attracting to north Northamptonshire new labour-rich businesses that will bring with them a wealth of jobs and opportunities.
	It has never before been so important to look into the employment situation in the area. That is because of the huge housing expansion that is taking place in north Northamptonshire, which will see 167,000 extra dwellings built in the county by 2016. Many of the plans for the huge increase in housing have been in place for years. However, there is little planning for infrastructure and employment opportunities to support that massive growth.
	I run the "Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden" campaign, which seeks the views of local people in regular surveys, forums, meetings and visits. As an MP, I hold well-attended weekly constituency surgeries where I regularly meet constituents who have concerns about unemployment, or who are dissatisfied with the service received from Jobcentre Plus orthe local Department for Work and Pensions. Unfortunately, Wellingborough Jobcentre Plus has a performance rating for customer service of only77.5 per cent., which means that about a quarter of all the people who use the service are dissatisfied. That is unacceptable. I have arranged a meeting with the corporate management team of Wellingborough council and the district manager of Jobcentre Plus to discuss the concerns of my constituents about unemployment and the effectiveness of the service they receive.
	Rising unemployment is a big issue for all the authorities in my area and we are all committed to alleviating the problems. Just before the debate, I opened 12 Sheep street, 23,000 sq ft of modern office accommodation. The interesting point about that development is that it was a public-private partnership. Invest Northamptonshire put in half the capital and Ciel Developers put in the other 50 per cent. The development will attract jobs to Wellingborough, but the problem is that Invest Northamptonshire has just found out that the Government have severely cut its budget. We have an initiative in my constituency that will work well, but the funding for it is being cut. Will the Minister comment on that?
	I am a little disappointed by the Government's response to my letters; I felt that it was rather complacent. I want a constructive debate, so I am sure that we shall not hear Government spin on Labour's employment record in the Minister's reply. I wanted simply to lay bare to the Minister the facts about what is happening in my constituency.
	I have three suggestions to make to the Minister. If he could meet all three, it would help my constituents enormously and reduce unemployment in north Northamptonshire. First, I invite him to visit Wellingborough to see the problems at first hand so that he can be more responsive to the needs of my constituents. Perhaps he could help to organise a multi-agency response to a serious unemployment problem.
	Secondly, the employment landscape of Wellingborough has changed. Because of the expansion of house building, we are becoming a commuter town, and are only50 minutes away from London by rail. The Government often talk about relocating some of their Departments to the regions. Why not bring a Department to Wellingborough? It would create jobs for people living in north Northamptonshire, and the town is only50 minutes away from London, which must be a major benefit for a Department that is relocating.
	Thirdly, I have repeatedly argued for a community hospital in the constituency to cope with the growing needs of the local population. A new hospital would create local jobs, while providing a vital service to the ever-growing population of north Northamptonshire. As Wellingborough is in the worst funded primary care trust in the worst funded strategic health authority in the country, by reference to the national capitation formula, if the Government invest in Wellingborough the money they say that they should invest, we could have such a hospital. I am asking not for more Government expenditure, but for our fair share of Government expenditure.
	It is vital that we all work together to encourage new business and industry to come to north Northamptonshire. Now that the expansion programme is under way, this is a perfect time to do that, and I look forward to the Minister's comments.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) on securing this important debate and I praise him for his tireless work for constituents on so many issues of crucial importance—not least, unemployment. Kettering is next door to Wellingborough and many of the circumstances that my hon. Friend described are also pertinent to my Kettering constituency.
	I would like to place on the record the current stateof affairs regarding unemployment in Kettering. In December 1997, 1,235 unfortunate people were claiming jobseeker's allowance, compared with 1,232—a staggering reduction of three—in December 2006. Last year, an extra 219 people found themselves without work, which is a staggering increase of 21.6 per cent.
	If we compare Kettering with the other 645 constituencies in the UK in respect of the percentage change in unemployment between December 2005 and December 2006, it was worse in only 21 other constituencies. On the figures since December 1997, the situation was worse in only 83 constituencies. Indeed, there has been an increase in unemployment since 2001. That year there were 781 unemployed people claiming benefit in the Kettering constituency, which has since increased by 451—well above 60 per cent.
	The increase in Kettering's unemployment far outstrips that for the east midlands as a whole, and for Great Britain as a whole. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said, the reason for that is the decline in the manufacturing base. In 1997 Kettering had 9,000 manufacturing jobs, compared with just over 7,000 today. Instead of 27 per cent. of the work force being employed in manufacturing, there are now just 17 per cent.
	Somehow, constituencies such as Kettering have, unfortunately, been overlooked in the Government's efforts to tackle unemployment. Although the overall unemployment rate of 2.4 per cent. is low, the shift in the figures over the last five or six years is alarming to many of my constituents. The overwhelming reasonfor the change is, as my hon. Friend said, the increase in red tape faced by manufacturing businesses in Kettering and also the knock-on effect of the Government's increase in the rate of national insurance contributions. Although the money may have gone into the national health service, it has also piled on costs for manufacturing and other employers in Kettering.
	North Northamptonshire faces a huge challenge over the next 10, 15 or 20 years. The Government want to build 52,100 new houses, but in their plans they allow for only an extra 43,800 new jobs. We already have an unemployment problem, and if the Government are not careful, it will get a lot worse.

James Plaskitt: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) on securing the debate and I thank the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) for his comments. They both spoke up effectively for their constituents. I will address most of my comments to the hon. Member for Wellingborough, who initiated the debate, but much of what I say also applies to Kettering.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough is right to say that unemployment in his constituency has increased recently. On examining the reasons for that, I noticed that over the last year, three companies made substantial lay-offs in his constituency—Carlsberg, Avon and Golden Wonder. None of them comes under the label of traditional manufacturing, however, and I notice that he sought to lay the blame for the increase in unemployment on the decline in manufacturing employment. The situation is more complex than that.
	I would like to take this opportunity to undertake a forensic examination of both unemployment and employment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. First, let me clear up how things stand now as opposed to May 1997 when this Government came to office. He referred to that in his speech, so I will respond. I know that he had a disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this issue in the House a short while ago, so here are the facts.
	In May 1997, when the Government came to office, the claimant count in Wellingborough was 1,826. Last month, as the hon. Gentleman has said, it was 1,536. I accept that that is an increase over the position a year ago, but I hope that he will also accept that, notwithstanding the recent increase, the claimant count is 290 lower than it was in the month that the Conservative Government left office. It represents a fall of 16 per cent. in his constituency. Furthermore the current claimant count represents 2.4 per cent. of his local work force. That is low by any standards and better than the United Kingdom average. He may be interested to know that the claimant count for the whole of Northamptonshire in May 1997 was 9,522; it is currently 6,886—a fall of 28 per cent.
	The hon. Gentleman may also be interested in the wider historical perspective. I should point out that, for most of the 1990-97 period, unemployment in Wellingborough remained stubbornly above 2,000 and, in the depths of the 1992 recession, it was closer to 3,000. That was the second Tory recession. Duringthe first Tory recession in his constituency, the unemployment figure was more than 3,000. I offer the hon. Gentleman all that to put the current situation in context and not in any way to minimise at all the challenge faced by his constituents who are unemployed nor to dismiss the fact that the claimant count in Wellingborough has recently risen. I regret, just as much as he does, the loss of any job by any of his constituents.
	In a dynamic economy, even one such as ours which is now in a record period of sustained growth, there will be job losses. Some markets will decline, some firms will close, some will move, some will get taken over and job losses will result. The crucial questionsfor the hon. Gentleman's constituents and those in Kettering who may suffer job losses as a result of those trends are as follows. First, will there be another job for them to move to? Secondly, will it take them long to get that other job and, thirdly, if they need help to prepare for getting that job, is that help available? I want to look at those three questions in turn.
	The first question is whether there will be another job for the hon. Gentleman's constituents to move to. The answer is yes. Last year, 4,695 of his constituents registered at some point during the year as unemployed, but 4,425 moved off the register in his constituency in the past year because they had found work. Furthermore, last year, no fewer than 6,300 job vacancies were notified to his local Jobcentre Plus. All that speaks of a dynamic local economy.
	The second question his constituents need to have answered is, if they encounter unemployment, will it take them long to find the next job. The answer is that it certainly does not take as long as it used to. If we go back to December 1996, as the hon. Gentleman did, we find that, of the constituents who were then unemployed, 345 experienced unemployment for more than a year. Currently, the number of his constituents waiting more than a year to find a job is 60. He referred in his opening comments to the Labour party's commitment to eradicate long-term unemployment.As he will see in his constituency, long-term unemployment has declined dramatically. Now, more than two thirds of unemployed people in Wellingborough find a job within six months. Long-term unemployment in Wellingborough has fallenby 73 per cent. since 1997. Long-term youth unemployment has fallen by 52 per cent. Overall, there are now 4,700 more jobs in his constituency than there were in 1997.
	The hon. Gentleman will recall that the third question was: is there extra help on hand for those who are seeking another job? The answer is yes. To start with, his constituents have been helped hugely by the new deal. Since it got under way, 2,130 people in Wellingborough have been helped into a job by the new deal, including 860 young people and 980 lone parents. His party opposed the new deal.
	There is also additional help. Basic skills support is available right across Northamptonshire. Four regional and two local European social fund contracts are available, targeted at longer-term unemployment. Job preparation courses are available through his local Jobcentre Plus office, supported locally by Wincanton, DTS, Morrisons, Milbury Care, Shaw Health Care and Asda. Work is also being done through the Wellingborough Prosper Group. I know that the local employer engagement manager at Jobcentre Plus has written to him to supply him with further details of local schemes to assist people who are seeking work. Pathways to work is already proving very successful. It will be implemented in his area next year. As he will also know, Wellingborough is part of the Milton Keynes and south midlands growth area, which is forecast to create more than 13,000 further job opportunities by 2021.
	The hon. Gentleman and I, and the hon. Member for Kettering, all want to see the claimant count in his area coming down. There is no debate whatsoever about that. For that to happen, the right macro-economic policies must be in place, which they are.We have a stable, growing economy that is creating jobs—2.5 million across the country as a whole so far—and attracting investment. Domestic business investment is strong and foreign investment in the United Kingdom is exceptionally strong. All that helps to deliver increased levels of employment. There is a labour force participation rate of 74.6 per cent., which is one of the highest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That situation is delivering lower levels of unemployment—it has declined in every single region of the United Kingdom. It is also delivering a plentiful supply of job vacancies: there are 600,000. Long-term unemployment is down by three quarters. Long-term youth unemployment is down by two thirds. We also require the right strategy for the future, to build on that stability. That is why we are now aiming at an 80 per cent. labour force participation rate and why welfare reform that is now being implemented will introduce the employment support allowance and the extension of the pathways to work programme.
	As with all other hon. Members, including myself, the hon. Gentleman's task is to work alongside all the key stakeholders in his area to ensure that the strategy locally means that his area is well positioned to take advantage of the strong national economy. There is a key role for his regional development agency, his local Jobcentre Plus office, local authorities, employers, colleges, the Connexions services, and many others. Get all that right and he will find that he can keep a steady flow of new jobs coming into his constituency. That is necessary to absorb the fact that, unfortunately, some of his constituents will from time to time, for a variety of reasons, find that they lose their jobs. If we want to be able to deliver further growth in employment for the future on top of the 4,700 extra jobs that have already come to his constituency since 1997, the crucial thing is to continue with the economic policies that we already have in place.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.